1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5

CYMEYON V. HILL,

6 Case No. 21-cv-05230-YGR (PR) Plaintiff, 7 ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION OF 8 MAGISTRATE JUDGE

T. LEMON, et al.,

9 Defendants. 10

11 The parties to this closed prisoner civil rights action appeared before Magistrate Judge 12 Robert M. Illman on April 13, 2023 for court-ordered settlement proceedings, and they then 13 entered into a settlement agreement that led to a dismissal with prejudice on April 19, 2023. Dkt. 14 30, 32. 15 Pending before this Court is a document filed by plaintiff entitled “Notice [of] Motion [for] 16 Breach of Settlement Agreement [and] Motion to Compel,” which appears to be a motion to 17 enforce a settlement agreement. Dkt. 34. Plaintiff requests that the Court “have [Magistrate Judge 18 Illman] . . . enforce [the] settlement agreement and compel[] [Deputy] Attorney General John 19 Fa[u]lconer to comply with [the] settlement agreement . . . .” Id. at 2. 20 The Court previously referred plaintiff’s aforementioned motion to Magistrate Judge 21 Robert M. Illman in order for him to file a report and recommendation or, if necessary, for further 22 proceedings to determine whether further Court action is required to ensure compliance with the 23 terms of the settlement agreement. Dkt. 36. 24 On September 19, 2023, Magistrate Judge Illman issued his report and recommendation in 25 which he stated as follows:

26 . . . the court does not have jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement in this case, and alternatively, Plaintiff has failed to allege 27 a breach of the settlement agreement and the undersigned Any party may file objections to this Report and 1 Recommendation with the District Court within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) & (C); 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Civil L.R. 72-3. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s 3 order 4 Dkt. 37 at 4. 5 As mentioned above, Magistrate Judge Illman informed the parties that any objections to a 6 report and recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of receipt thereof. See id. (citing 7 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) & (C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Civil L.R. 72-3). The district court must 8 “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made,” and 9 “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the 10 magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Civ. L.R.72-3(a) (requiring that any objections 11 be accompanied by a motion for de novo determination). 12 The deadline to file an objection to the report and recommendation has expired, and no 13 objections have been filed in this case.1 In the absence of a timely objection, the Court “need only 14 satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 15 recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, advisory committee notes (1983) (citing Campbell v. U.S. 16 Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 17 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“The statute [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)] makes it clear that 18 the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if 19 [an] objection is made, but not otherwise.”). The Court has reviewed the record on its face and 20 finds no clear error. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Magistrate Judge Illman’s 21 report and recommendation (Dkt. 37) is ACCEPTED and shall become the Order of this Court. 22 Therefore, plaintiff’s pending motion entitled “Notice [of] Motion [for] Breach of Settlement 23 Agreement [and] Motion to Compel” is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction. Dkt. 34. 24

25 1 The Court notes that plaintiff’s copy of Magistrate Judge Illman’s September 19, 2023 report and recommendation was returned as undeliverable on October 16, 2023 with a notation 26 that plaintiff is “inactive.” Dkt. 39. To date, plaintiff has not updated his address. However, the Court need not address this issue because it is adopting Magistrate Judge Illman’s finding that 27 plaintiff’s motion should be denied for lack of jurisdiction. Dkt. 37 at 2 (“[T]he court dismissed 1 This Order terminates Docket Nos. 34 and 37. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: November 8, 2023 4 eee probe ptf ttec

JUBGE YVONNE GONZATEZ ROGERS

5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 a 12

14 © 15 16

= 17 6 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28